COMPATIBILITY AND COHERENCE BETWEEN CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR THE SAME STOCKS

Japan said that neither the practices on the high seas nor
the practices of coastal States should be subjected to the other.
Specific arrangements must be elaborated by the countries
concerned, usually within a regional or subregional organization.
This arrangement must be open to all States -- coastal and distant
fishing -- through the entire migratory range and habitat of the
species. Although it is wise to apply the same measures inside and
outside the EEZ, these measures should vary region by region, and
specific measures cannot be applied on a global level.
Compatibility and coherence require that due regard be given to all
interests concerned.

India said that circumstances differ between oceans, regions
and subregions. There should be a broad framework of guidelines at
the international level that relate to features of all stocks, yet
there should also be regional flexibility. A set of international
guidelines will strengthen regional or bilateral efforts.
Korea stated that he could not avoid the legal arguments as
these are the roots of this discussion. He cited Articles 63
(paragraph 2), 117, 118 and 119 of the Law of the Sea Convention
and UN publications that discuss the issue of the special rights of
coastal States. He said that when a State signs a treaty,
exceptions of sovereignty disappear with the acceptance of the
treaty's obligations. Nandan responded that he did not want to
debate the legal rights of coastal States at this time.

The Philippines said that obligations should be adjusted or
delayed to meet the needs of developing States. To illustrate this
he described the provisions for developing countries in the Climate
Change Convention. Chile stressed the need for a balance
between rights and duties. He said that there could be a single
regime for certain species. Article 4 in A/CONF.164/L.11 addresses
the application of coherence. Coastal States have the duty to
provide information, but they must have the cooperation of the
distant water fishing States. Document A/CONF.164/L.14 contains a
series of elements directed toward the practices of regional
organizations, including a consultation mechanism with coastal
States. He mentioned the need for an ecosystem approach to manage
these species, a competent authority to impose conservation
measures, and, if no consensus is reached, a binding system for
settlement of disputes.

Argentina said that within the EEZ there are different
regimes for the preservation of resources, but outside there is no
system at all. Not only do we need coherent systems, but we need a
system outside the EEZ. Everyone agrees that we need cooperation
and consistency, but what is lacking is political will. He
suggested the establishment of a drafting group to outline
principles and standards, which should serve as guidelines for
regional organizations.

China said that all countries concerned have common and
equal responsibilities, obligations and interests; the different
status between the high seas and the EEZs should be recognized; and
conservation, management and exploitation of these stocks requires
all countries to cooperate. Minimum international standards are
needed and should be developed by regional organizations. We need
to consider measures in the high seas when formulating EEZ regimes
and vice versa, as well as the unequal social and economic needs of
different countries.

The US said that all international regimes on living marine
resources should be consistent with UNCLOS. The sovereign rights of
States are fundamental. Often political and economic needs take
precedence over ecosystem needs, so we must break new ground, find
new solutions and seek consistency between the high seas and
coastal zones.

Korea said that as long as coastal States insist they have
a special right, we will have a problem. Although high seas
overfishing affects EEZs, the opposite also occurs and conservation
must take place on both sides. Japan commented that perhaps
his earlier intervention was misunderstood. He explained that
measures in the EEZs and the high seas must be consistent with one
another; data must be provided by coastal States; and even if
coastal States do not fish in adjacent areas, they should be
consulted.

Australia said that there are competing priorities but there
is also a common thread -- long-term sustainability of these
resources. Cooperation should be based on EEZ regimes, but should
also reflect interdependence. States fishing on the high seas need
to respect the rights of coastal States and high seas measures
should not place an undue burden on coastal States or on the
resources of the EEZ. He supported Chile and Argentina's suggestion
that a working group be established to elaborate ways to move from
cooperation to practice.

The EC said we must negotiate within the framework of
regional organizations, fully subscribe to consistency of measures
within EEZs and beyond, respect the rights of all States, and
recognize the sovereignty of coastal States. It is also important
to look at the stocks on both sides of the 200-mile limit as part
of one biological unit. The EC has circulated a paper on these
guidelines, A/CONF.164/L.20. He also said that we have to deal with
non-contracting parties so they do not undermine conservation
measures.

Mexico said there should be a balance of interests between
coastal States and distant water fishing States. It is in the
interest of coastal States to conserve in the adjacent high seas.
Peru said that it is necessary to make conservation and
management measures in the EEZs and high seas coherent. She did not
agree with statements of those who seek to place the rights of
coastal States and distant water fishing States on egalitarian
terms. This overlooks the fundamental principles of ecosystems and
the economic and social needs of coastal States. It is important to
bear in mind that the obligations of the coastal State are
different from those of the distant water fishing nations.

Trinidad and Tobago said that the sovereign rights of
coastal States include discretionary powers for the allocation of
surpluses to other States, and the terms and conditions for
conservation and management of the stocks in question. Coastal
States must form the nucleus of any body that manages resources in
the EEZs.

The Russian Federation said that, in his view, the majority
of delegations support the idea of unity of stock throughout the
area of habitat and the development of unifying measures for the
regulation of stocks. Measures for conservation should include a
strategy for long-term stock management with definitions of
allowable catch, permissible fishing areas, the amount of fish
taken, and measures governing fish to be caught and the type of
gear used.

Norway agreed that cohesion and consistency should prevail,
but asked on what premises they should be based. He said that the
coastal States have the most expertise, experience and interest in
dealing with the fisheries in their particular regions. Distant
water fishing fleets can move to new grounds if a stock located
within the adjacent high seas becomes depleted, but the coastal
State has no such alternative. The two sides cannot be given equal
footing unless we revert to a pre-UNCLOS situation. Broad
guidelines should be set up, based on the EEZ measures and applied
to the high seas, so that both are consistent.

Sweden said that the interventions of the US and Russia
expressed a good basis for guidelines on compatibility and
coherence between the regimes in EEZs and the high seas. He
associated himself with the remarks of India on noncompulsory
international guidelines at a general and broad level allowing for
flexibility at regional and subregional levels. Perhaps the
Secretariats of the regional organizations should be situated in
coastal States. In the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
session in 1996, we should see how the recommendations of this
Conference can be implemented and take further measures at that
time. We should take advantage of the CSD High-Level Segment to
encourage the political will necessary to implement decisions.

Iceland associated himself with the remarks of Chile, saying
that special attention should be given to situations in different
regions. He added that the special interests of coastal States and
the regimes they have set up must be taken into consideration
before a global regime is established.

Poland associated himself with Argentina, on the need for
strong political will to reach agreement on cooperation, and with
the EC, on defining cooperation to mean negotiation. He agreed with
Sweden on the need to strengthen regional organizations. Regional
organizations can be the forum in which States negotiate
conservation and management regimes for straddling and highly
migratory fish stocks.

Canada commented that UNCLOS should be seen as a living
document, part of a law that can adapt and be interpreted. He also
said that the differences can be bridged if examined from a
practical point of view. Coastal States have special rights due to
their special geographic situation. The Law of the Sea invites the
coastal States to cooperate with regional organizations but not
with other States. Nationals of the coastal States suffer from
discrimination since, under UNCLOS, they must fish in the adjacent
high seas under the same rules as those nationals that fish in the
high seas. Distant water fishing fleets are not bound by the same
rules. The fact that 95% of the fishing takes place in the EEZ does
not help management, as a biological unit should not be divided
along jurisdictional limits.

Colombia said that Item VIII of the Chair's text contains
the basic elements for the establishment of compatibility and
coherence between national and international measures. He supported
Mexico's comment on strengthening regional organizations.

The FAO said that regional bodies should be strengthened and
cooperation among bodies encouraged. The dormant COFI subcommittee
on international organizations connected with fisheries might be a
model for an equivalent mechanism for regional organizations to
discuss common concerns.

The EC pointed out that some straddling fish stocks may be
out of the EEZs, but that this fact must be examined in the
biological context, since due to seasonal mobility, a significant
part of a stock may be out of the EEZ at some time of the year.
Regarding the special status of coastal States based on UNCLOS, the
EC did agree with many of the arguments raised, but he did not want
to open the legal debate again. Korea abstained from any
further legal discussion, but endorsed the EC statement, as did
China.

In response to Korea's earlier intervention, New Zealand
referred to the same Law of the Sea Office publication on high
seas fisheries and UNCLOS to highlight the fact that the rights of
coastal States should not be prejudiced.

Indonesia disagreed with the EC's point on the relevance of
coastal States' interests and insisted that coastal States have
special rights that should take precedence, but with possible
exceptions. Argentina expressed regret for the failings of
the second Convention on the Law of the Sea and Iceland
suggested that the delegates meet in a legal library.

The debate closed with an intervention by the representative of
Greenpeace who asked the delegates to bear in mind that
consistency should apply not so much to the rights but to the duty
of all the States involved to manage and conserve these stocks.
With regard to coastal States, he insisted that those rights given
special attention should be those of the traditional fisheries and
coastal communities dependent on the fisheries.